The Pelicans' situation has been unstable ever since the franchise relocated from Charlotte in 2002, and especially since Katrina. This excruciating state of limbo unfortunately defines the Pelicans. It's difficult to say where they belong.

You get the sense Ralph Sampson, if he had been designed by NASA engineers rather than a cruel god, still would have ended up as one of the great Yeah, But guys of his generation: an immensely gifted, lightly snakebitten antecedent to Vince Carter and Chris Webber.

I know that, but those players already have to be on your team to begin with. So maybe a situation where you have a pretty expensive team and then get lucky and hit on a number of draft picks and then you decide to keep everyone and pay the young stars big.

Players contracts expire, they need new contracts, (ie. Brogdon, Middleton, Giannis, Bledsoe, Lopez, Hill, etc.) Middleton just received a 17M dollar pay bump over last season. Giannis is due a 15M+ pay bump if he signs the super max extension which also comes with max increases. These numbers add up, it's really not that difficult.

skones wrote:The repeater tax with Brogdon in the fold and the new Giannis deal kicking in would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS and that's never even brought up.

And? It's not your money.

That's a pretty damn hollow argument. It's not like you're putting yourself in a position to just bleed 150M+ in consecutive seasons or anything by getting into the repeater tax for multiple years. But hey, don't complain about any contract given out ever because it's not your money. Acting like this doesn't matter when it comes to long term sustained success is just short-sighted.

skones wrote:The repeater tax with Brogdon in the fold and the new Giannis deal kicking in would be ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS and that's never even brought up.

And? It's not your money.

That's a pretty damn hollow argument. It's not like you're putting yourself in a position to just bleed 150M+ in consecutive seasons or anything by getting into the repeater tax for multiple years. But hey, don't complain about any contract given out ever because it's not your money. Acting like this doesn't matter when it comes to long term sustained success is just short-sighted.

We are a small market team, we're operating with that in mind.

Nah. You don't need to shill for them. They'll make plenty of money off of this team - it's never been more profitable than it is right at this moment. The "small market" **** was cute when we were arguing over whether to overpay Drew Gooden. It's another when we're talking about building a legitimate title contender.

Plus, our contracts are going to keep us over the cap for the near future whether we brought Brogdon back or not. Utilizing his bird rights were one of the few ways this team will be able to improve. Arguing against paying the tax in order enable "sustained success" is just obtuse, tbh.

I quoted the line above, because it is key to at least my take on this. You had to cost/benefit this specific player and circumstance.

If we had say Pascal Siakam and let him walk under the same circumstances, then yes, owners deserve scorn.

Or back in the day, the Pacers had to part with Brad Miller in his prime because they didn’t want to pay/afford the tax.

With Brogdon there were so many variables that made you hesitate on 4/$88, and that’s before you even reached the lux tax analysis.

That's fair and I understand you are just using Brogdon to illustrate a point. I didn't mean it in a way that this thread was pointless. It's actually the opposite. I just get frustrated when we (myself included) say things like the owners are cheap because they didn't match. It's so much more nuanced than that and it's probably why I replied to Nowak's post. I sometimes think about ownership the same way he does and want to blame them. However, they may be cheap but there could also be 10-100 more variables that go into the decision. I'm as skeptical as most when it comes to this ownership group but I'm trying not to comment deeply about their decision making process until I have more information.

Okay, back to not derailing your thread.

I don't want to further derail this thread, but it baffles me how anyone can still have a take like this.

Skeptical of this ownership group? You mean the group who saved the team from the sorriest mom and pop operation in the league? The group who built a state-of-the-art arena that, besides being an outstanding place to watch a game, has become one of the best concert venues in the Midwest? The group who, for all intents and purposes, saved the team from being relocated?The group who has revitalized an enormous chunk of downtown that was a ghost town for a decade and a half? The group who has established a foundation to provide youth education, community betterment and youth health & wellness programs around the city and state?

Is that the group you're referencing?

Look, LED have not been perfect, but let's try to imagine a reality where they didn't buy the team. Do you really think Senator Kohl would've had the foresight or connections to bring in a guy like Peter Feigin to pound the payment and get the arena built? No way-and without that, we have no team in this town to root for, the city still has a vacant parking lot where the vibrant Deer District stands and the state budget has a gaping hole in it where the Bucks' tax dollars sit.

That's a pretty damn hollow argument. It's not like you're putting yourself in a position to just bleed 150M+ in consecutive seasons or anything by getting into the repeater tax for multiple years. But hey, don't complain about any contract given out ever because it's not your money. Acting like this doesn't matter when it comes to long term sustained success is just short-sighted.

We are a small market team, we're operating with that in mind.

Nah. You don't need to shill for them. They'll make plenty of money off of this team - it's never been more profitable than it is right at this moment. The "small market" **** was cute when we were arguing over whether to overpay Drew Gooden. It's another when we're talking about building a legitimate title contender.

Plus, our contracts are going to keep us over the cap for the near future whether we brought Brogdon back or not. Utilizing his bird rights were one of the few ways this team will be able to improve. Arguing against paying the tax in order enable "sustained success" is just obtuse, tbh.

I'm not being a shill, I'm being rational, but K. Not everyone wants to sink 80M+ into a guy who doesn't want to be here, has durability issues, and isn't this mammoth difference maker he's made out to be. I DON'T think this roster took this step back some think they did with Matthews, Rolo, Korver in the fold.

What's the point in discussing any of this if you're not going to operate within the confines of the reality of the franchise and the way this league operates with the repeater tax? Billionaire's with a B. These guys aren't Ballmer.

I'm not gonna feel sorry for billionaires that should in theory, fork over the necessary cash to ensure you field the best roster of players to win a championship, but the repeater tax is absolutely having an effect on how these teams operate, and it's a massive cost-risk that very few, if any organizations have been willing to dip into. You're naive if you think otherwise.

Now, if the Bucks sign Giannis to a super-max and make even more cost-cutting moves in future seasons to avoid the tax, then you can run back Lasry's comments from earlier this year and hold their feet to the fire on this.

skones wrote:That's a pretty damn hollow argument. It's not like you're putting yourself in a position to just bleed 150M+ in consecutive seasons or anything by getting into the repeater tax for multiple years. But hey, don't complain about any contract given out ever because it's not your money. Acting like this doesn't matter when it comes to long term sustained success is just short-sighted.

We are a small market team, we're operating with that in mind.

Nah. You don't need to shill for them. They'll make plenty of money off of this team - it's never been more profitable than it is right at this moment. The "small market" **** was cute when we were arguing over whether to overpay Drew Gooden. It's another when we're talking about building a legitimate title contender.

Plus, our contracts are going to keep us over the cap for the near future whether we brought Brogdon back or not. Utilizing his bird rights were one of the few ways this team will be able to improve. Arguing against paying the tax in order enable "sustained success" is just obtuse, tbh.

I'm not being a shill, I'm being rational, but K. Not everyone wants to sink 80M+ into a guy who doesn't want to be here, has durability issues, and isn't this mammoth difference maker he's made out to be. I DON'T think this roster took this step back some think they did with Matthews, Rolo, Korver in the fold.

What's the point in discussing any of this if you're not going to operate within the confines of the reality of the franchise and the way this league operates with the repeater tax? Billionaire's with a B. These guys aren't Ballmer.

We can reasonably argue whether Brogdon was worth the $86 mil. I would have matched that offer. But I see reasonable arguments against it. Paying the tax isn't one of them, though.

Look at the teams who have competed for a title for the last several years. Big markets. Small markets. They generally pay the tax. The Raptors and Warriors paid the tax last year. The Thunder and the Cavs have paid the tax, too, despite coming from smaller markets. The Bucks ownership group has a net worth that vastly exceeds the Clay Bennett-led ownership group and is on par with Dan Gilbert - though I think once you get to a certain point, it really doesn't make a difference whether you're worth $7B or $20B - you can afford a tax bill.

It's the cost of contention, and teams pay it knowing the bills will be high because they'll benefit in the long run from increased revenue and the value of their franchises.

I understand why they didn't match brogdon but I don't Want to hear this ownership group talk about budgets and not paying the tax. The taxpayers paid for their arena, they bought up a bunch of properties and will be making money like crazy, not to mention they're already billionaires. They have no excuse when it comes to money in my mind.

We can reasonably argue whether Brogdon was worth the $86 mil. I would have matched that offer. But I see reasonable arguments against it. Paying the tax isn't one of them, though.

Paying the tax requires context. Paying an enormous repeater tax bill as a result of Brogdon is entirely different than paying the tax when we resign Giannis. The owners are well aware they'll be paying it when Giannis resigns. You're sitting there calling people "shills" like an **** without looking at ANY of that context.

We can reasonably argue whether Brogdon was worth the $86 mil. I would have matched that offer. But I see reasonable arguments against it. Paying the tax isn't one of them, though.

Paying the tax requires context. Paying an enormous repeater tax bill as a result of Brogdon is entirely different than paying the tax when we resign Giannis. The owners are well aware they'll be paying it when Giannis resigns. You're sitting there calling people "shills" like an **** without looking at ANY of that context.

You're acting like the reason we'd pay the tax is solely because of Brogdon, when the reality is it's because of the entire roster, including the contract two times the size we just paid Middleton (who played worse than he did in the ECF). If tax considerations were removed, it sounds like you wouldn't have signed Brogdon, anyway.

I'm using "shill" because that's exactly what PP called himself for making the same case you're making. Your choice to call me a **** is because you're sensitive to that description of your arguments (not you, personally), which I find bizarre because that's exactly what you're doing - you're making a bevy of unsupported assumptions about the financial viability of a franchise owned by billionaires, who just got an arena significantly subsidized by the public, in order to defend their decision to take a cheaper route to support a title-contender.

raferfenix wrote:Zach Lowe and Bill Simmons both thought if the Bucks could do it over again we wouldn’t have extended Bledsoe.

Letting him walk would have given us enough room to keep Brogdon and start George Hill at PG.

The luxury tax tiers is one question. But even in that context the Bucks ultimately chose Bledsoe over Brogdon. Or they just botched it.

For 82 games Bledsoe brought it. Durable, first team all defense. Hill doesn’t have the stamina nor skills to do that. We needed both guys. And for $24mm next year, we’ve got a great PG duo.

The cray cray money was spent on Middleton. That was the one where they let the “market value” crap drive the decision. Bledsoe getting 3/$54, Hill at 2/$20 and Lopez at 4/$52 were all fair value signings. Middleton is the one that will kill you unless you win the title with him in the next two years.

That's a pretty damn hollow argument. It's not like you're putting yourself in a position to just bleed 150M+ in consecutive seasons or anything by getting into the repeater tax for multiple years. But hey, don't complain about any contract given out ever because it's not your money. Acting like this doesn't matter when it comes to long term sustained success is just short-sighted.

We are a small market team, we're operating with that in mind.

Nah. You don't need to shill for them. They'll make plenty of money off of this team - it's never been more profitable than it is right at this moment. The "small market" **** was cute when we were arguing over whether to overpay Drew Gooden. It's another when we're talking about building a legitimate title contender.

Plus, our contracts are going to keep us over the cap for the near future whether we brought Brogdon back or not. Utilizing his bird rights were one of the few ways this team will be able to improve. Arguing against paying the tax in order enable "sustained success" is just obtuse, tbh.

I really think you guys over estimate how much money they make on this team. Short-term, yes there was a huge jump in valuation due to the stadium and Giannis. They are also taking on loans to finance the team and stadium. Most of the Billions with a B are tied up in their investments. XX million is still a lot of money to them. They are business men who got a one-time windfall after taking on a ton of risk. They didn't know Giannis would be Giannis when they bought the team 5 years ago. There is still the chance TV contracts bust/Giannis leave and the team loses a 1/2 of its value in the next five years. But sure, let's assume they are willing to lose $50m+ a year just because they are billionaires. We don't need to feel sympathy for the owners to realize they aren't going dropping that much year over year. They are hedge funds guys from NY. A championship isn't worth 9 figures to them.

People look at Herb Kohl and are like he made a 1/2 Billion on the Bucks after only spending 20m. Well he also had that 20m locked up in the team for 30 years, was bleeding millions of dollars year after year, rumored to having taking NBA loan money to cash flow the team, and even though they had a free stadium, they still paid for upkeep. Suddenly, when you factor that in, you are better off investing in index funds.

humanrefutation wrote: you're making a bevy of unsupported assumptions about the financial viability of a franchise owned by billionaires, who just got an arena significantly subsidized by the public, in order to defend their decision to take a cheaper route to support a title-contender.

My sense is that these guys actually don’t have the cash flow to simply start tossing it into payroll. I’ll wait until the updated Forbes revenue estimates come out, but this is a tiny market, even with the new arena. The local TV rights revenue discrepancy is massive. The Brogdon deal theoretically might have cost them $175 to $200 million over four years.

To come up with that cash, those guys are going to need to liquidate a lot of holdings. It might even down the road put pressure on them to later sell the team to a Seattle buyer for $2 billion and just cash it all out.

You save spending that $175 to $200mm of tax money for the difference maker. Again Brogdon didn’t fit the parameters.